Anwar Sadat provides a role model for Hamas

Egyptian leader launched a war against Israel but then made a peace agreement that has endured for decades.

Hamas militants hold a news conference in Gaza City on Thursday after a ceasefire agreement with Israel ended eight days of fighting. (Nov. 22, 2012)

By:David Koschitzky Published on Thu Nov 22 2012

In 1973, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat ordered his forces to attack Israel on the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur — sparking a bloody war that would cost thousands of lives on both sides. Less than five years later, Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with Israel, providing the foundation for decades of ensuing peace.

Sadat’s transformation from aggressor to peacemaker borders on the incredible. And that’s why we have every reason to believe that equally incredible events are possible in 2012.

I write this not in dismissal of the recent fighting between Israel and Hamas, but rather as a direct response to this past week’s events. Despite Hamas’s declaration of victory in the wake of the ceasefire — fuelled by fictional claims of achieving missile hits on Israel’s Parliament, navy, and aircraft — Hamas has little to celebrate. Israel can rightfully claim to have restored calm for the 1 million southern Israelis who have lived under incessant missile fire (more than 700 such attacks in 2012 before the Gaza operation). Meanwhile, Hamas actions have harmed its own people immeasurably. In fact, Hamas missile fire into Israel constituted a war crime against both Israelis and Palestinians; targeting civilians and using civilians as human shields are equally banned under international law.

The time has come for Hamas to take a momentous decision in the interests of the people of Gaza. Indeed, Hamas need look no further than the other side of the Palestinian movement: the Fatah-governed West Bank.

In the West Bank, Fatah has worked with Israel and the international community to build up security, responsible governance, and — despite setbacks — prosperity. Without question, there have been challenges to the peace process, not the least of which is Fatah’s preconditions to negotiations. But Fatah has publicly committed to peace with Israel through the two-state solution, and has worked on a practical level with Israel in a number of areas to improve the situation on the ground. The reasoning is simple: a Palestinian state must be based on independent, modern and highly functioning democratic institutions that respond to the daily needs of Palestinians. Without such systems in place, a Palestinian state is bound to be failed state.

In Gaza, Hamas has adamantly refused to acknowledge Israel’s existence and has maintained its stated fantasy of establishing an Islamic state on the ruins of Israel. Coupled with its incessant missile attacks, this maximalist vision has only served to isolate Hamas and Gaza from the West, with the primary victims being Gazans themselves. Hamas and Gaza’s Salafists have made matters worse by imposing a fundamentalist strain of Islam on the public, particularly through increased restrictions on the place of women in society.

The differences between the two visions of Palestinian statehood on display in Gaza and the West Bank are stark — even irreconcilable. Wholesale rejectionism and violence are incompatible with negotiation, co-operation, and the path of peace. The Palestinian people deserve a united leadership. More importantly, they deserve leaders united for an end to the conflict with Israel. That choice ultimately belongs neither to Israel nor Fatah, but rather to Hamas itself. As Anwar Sadat demonstrated, enemies can make peace if there is a will for something better than conflict. If the architect of the Yom Kippur War could win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978, the suicide bombers of Hamas can choose to end this ongoing conflict in 2012.

There is a path of moderation that remains open to Hamas. In 2006, the international quartet outlined three conditions for Hamas to be accepted as a legitimate party moving forward:

• Renounce violence.

• Recognize Israel’s right to exist.

• Commit to abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

That Hamas has ardently rejected each of these points exposes the core obstacle to peace: the steadfast rejection of the right of the Jewish people to a state in their ancestral homeland. This is not an Israeli “talking point” — this is the stated aim of Hamas as expressed in its Covenant.

While a ceasefire is a first step in ending immediate hostilities, peace will remain elusive until the Palestinian leadership accepts the Jewish state’s legitimacy. This need not come at the expense of a Palestinian state (which polls show most Israelis support, in the context of a peace accord). Rather, such recognition would pave the way for negotiated compromises by both sides on a range of issues.

But until Hamas’s leadership abandons the path of rejection, missiles from Gaza will not only threaten Israelis. They will continue to obstruct the establishment of a unified Palestinian state through reconciliation and peace with Israel.

David Koschitzky is chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.